One weird trick that will drive Smuel's mom crazy

You said, "Wow, you sound smart," do you really think that doesn't sound like naysaying against education is a bad thing? Like being smart, somehow, is a negative trait? It really did read like that.

Neither do I, and I get your worries about people finding this humour offensive. However I don't think this forum is relevant enough to particularly be a benchmark for current gaming attitudes (sorry guys) for people to stumble upon and be upset (which I guess would be an additional attribute of general harm), and I still don't think any harm was done here. Do you really think it was? You really think what happened here was hugely problematic, that women are going to stumble on it and get despondent about a tongue in cheek attitude anyway?

In terms of the literature, I'd need to re-review it, which I can't really be bothered to do. I think the argument in the past was more about jokes contributing to rape culture, rather than just sexist culture, so although the points were related they may not be directly analogous to the current discussion. I get that you don't like this humour, but are you really going to just be an arse to everyone who has that opinion all the time? I guess if you are, good luck to you, I can't imagine that would be fun or easy - especially when you aren't necessarily correct in thinking so.

 

Like I said, it just depends what you call harm. But firstly...

... I don't think something has to be 'hugely problematic' to be considered harmful. I certainly thought it was kinda shitty, so there's that, though you might discount me. Perhaps better: I don't know who stumbled or will stumble across it, and I don't know who will (not) realize it's tongue in cheek or who it will make uncomfortable, especially in the case of new members, would-be members, visiting strangers, or even long-time members who it affects but who don't want to become a target by standing up. You said yourself that it would be wrong to actively make someone uncomfortable in a social setting, and it doesn't make sense to me to discount internet forums from this. (Sure, they're a different kind of social setting, just like texting, Facebooking, phoning, etc. are; but they're still a collection of people who've come together to interact with one another.) Granted, you might have been talking about persistent 'poke-to-provoke' jokes directed at individual people; but discomfort isn't limited to that. Besides, as you've pointed out, this place has a history of these sorts of jokes and comments, and piling it on as we're doing is just another form of such persistence—or, at least, quickly becomes indistinguishable from it.

If by 'be an arse', you mean 'say I think they're wrong to say stuff like that in what amounts to a public setting', then yes, I am. Aren't you going to express your own opinion, potentially incorrect as it may be?

 

Is it really this place's duty to be as inclusive as possible though? Maybe when the website was first made, when people didn't know what kind of person this website was attracting - then greater care should (and probably was) taking for the sake of inclusivity. However this place isn't a chess club, or political society, or any number of places or organisations that should almost certainly be as inclusive as possible - it's an old retro-gaming forum that's 10+ years old and has it's own tone and humour now.

From my perspective this was always a confrontational place of controversial humour and controversial opinions so long as they were well argued and reasoned, among other things - should everywhere that has a community that enjoys that kind of thing now change? Can there not be a single place where it's "allowed" to have that kind of tone? Or do we really need some sort of disclaimer at the top of general discussion, saying this, "This is our tone, these are our opinions, we don't actively endorse racist/sexist/prejudice behaviour but we like to joke about it from time to time?" I think if people can't do a little research and sense a place's tone to establish whether they would really fit in and just barrel in anyway, that's a bit of an issue itself. You wouldn't really roll into a communist organisation and go, "Hey, communism is neat and all, but I think you're all morons who should give capitalism a try."

And I get it, this is a gaming community, and anyone could just happen across - but when the moderators were more actively moderating they took pains to keep the weirdness out of the gaming section (and I think it's mostly still un-weird) so there is a space to discuss games without getting mired in the absurdity of the general discussion. I think branding and community personality go a long way to give a place appeal, and general discussion has always been an area to reflect that on any forum. This isn't a AAA gaming forum, which is great because it does allow us to talk about topics off limits to most forums, I don't see why a place where there is an established tone should change to be more inclusive - mainly because that doesn't reflect the values or the opinions of the current membership base.

Further, what humour do you think is acceptable for this forum? I mean, should we make jokes about sex? Obviously everyone but asexual people enjoy sex, however if a sex joke is overly crude and graphic without necessarily being heavy on objectification, I'd say many people could construe that as sexist - when really both genders are capable of deviant sexual behaviour. Where do you, personally, want to draw the line over what is and what isn't acceptable to talk about or joke about?

And besides, you say, "Oh you can't make a stand on a forum," that's bullshit. Plenty of times things have been said around here and people have actively stepped in to combat it, like that guy who was randomly anti-semitic on the arcanum discussion a while back. Further this isn't real life where a face to face confrontation can be daunting, this is the internet where you can idly hammer out an opinion on some keys without all those aggressive cues that make real confrontation daunting and intimidating. If people really can't be bothered to challenge a controversial opinion when there's really no tangible risk to themselves, I think people should develop a thicker skin - as I keep saying. This isn't Tiananmen Square, for god's sake.

And before you say people were annoyed strongly at you, that was because you got offended at something that could be construed as sexism, not something that definitely is sexist which I do think impinges on other people's rights. I'd say I'd be fine with any comment that was inappropriate so long as it could only be construed that way, then again I value freedom of speech and a lack of censorship and the right of the individual to express an opinion that I may or may not always agree with. I'm even fine with people expressing overtly racist or sexist opinions, so long as they appreciate people like me are going to want to take them to task over it.

I guess you value expression so long as it never upsets or offends anyone, which isn't really free expression at all.

No by "be an arse" I mean "be an arse". In your first post you just knee-jerkingly expressed whiny anguish, rather than trying to get across anything important or salient that you wanted to say - then waiting for a response for others so you could elaborate and get on your soapbox. I find that mode of arguing to be incredibly childish and annoying, if you've got something to say then lay it out in an articulate manner from the off - or at least lay any of the larger points you want to make out regardless of being articulate - rather than waiting for someone else to respond to what you are saying first. Maybe if you want better dialogue on the issues you could just express them in way that didn't immediately recall your own butthurt*.

*I mean medical butthurt from something like haemorrhoids, not of course referring to the butthurt of vigorous male-on-male sex cast in a negative context, because that would be wrong.

 

Great discussion guys, but I still don't see what any of this has to do with my mom.

 

Jojobobo, I don't really buy much of this; and I don't think I understand some of it. As far as I can tell, your first three paragraphs or so chiefly argue that this place should get a free pass on inclusivity because... it's been that way for a long time? it lends a certain charm to the place? it only happens in General Discussion so relax? (some) people's established enjoyment of potentially-insensitive (and, I would maintain, potentially-ambiguous) humour is more important than fostering an environment that allows people to feel included and socially comfortable? I'm honestly not 100% sure if you're arguing on this basis or not, and where you think the strength lies if you are; maybe it's in the last one (or perhaps you'll disagree with my characterization of your point). But anyway, you also make the comparison with a chess club, saying that a gathering like that should strive to be as inclusive as possible whereas ours doesn't have the same duty. Why? Is there a big difference between a collection of people brought together to play or discuss chess—a strategy-based game that has its own clubs/forums that are 10+ years old and which have their own General Discussions—and a place like this? I don't really see much of a distinction here. Maybe your point is more about the fact that it's largely confined to General Discussion; but I don't find this a strong argument: 'General Discussion' doesn't mean 'not a public/social setting anymore'. As for the attitudes you're talking about reflecting the values of current members, I wouldn't be surprised if you were right and this was true, because people tend to stay away from things they find uncomfortable or offensive. But anyway, I guess the thing I really hooked onto was:

For me, it's not so much a case of 'disallowing' certain types of tone; in my case, for example, I didn't 'ban' myself from making comments or jokes like that: I just don't want to do it, because I know the effect it can have. It's nothing really to do with being 'allowed', for me; but maybe I'm wrong in believing that other people would make the same choice when it comes to the inclusion and comfort of other people. Now, with Japes' post, you could say that I just didn't get it (and I still don't really; is the joke just 'some people actually think this stuff and that's bad'?), that it was tongue in cheek, meant to be taken in jest or as satirising sexism; and you might say that if I did get it, I'd be fine with 'allowing' it and jokes like it. Fair enough, maybe you're right; but I'd be surprised if I was the only one to wonder for a second how much of a 'joke' it was. I'm not sure if, in your comments above, you place the onus squarely on the person reading to comb through a message board before having a reaction to something they read in it; but I'd say this is more of a two-way street between poster and reader, and, as I said, I don't think I was the only one (maybe everybody will chime in and disagree).

* * *

You're right, it's not an easy line to draw, and isn't one I myself feel able or qualified enough to lay down once and for all. Personally, I just try to do my best on a day-to-day basis to not say things that will offend people, and I fail and make mistakes all the time.

* * *

I don't really know what the first sentence refers to, unless you're talking about the part where I suggested that some people might be unwilling to make a stand, for fear of being victimized. I'm not really sure if what I actually meant came across here: Sure, people make stands all the time; I know that. I'm just suggesting that some people might feel unable or unwilling. And, as regards the reason why, I don't agree with you that discourse on the internet can't be daunting or intimidating; I think it's a bit naive to think that the name-calling, stigma, and aggression that can be directed at you on a forum for expressing an opinion (especially an unpopular one) can be so easily shrugged off just because it doesn't involve a punch in the face or something. Yes, these sorts of things can be less threatening than physical stuff; but they shouldn't be dismissed as insignificant on that basis.

* * *

Lastly, I'll say once more that I can find salience or importance in things even if you don't. For me, my 'knee-jerk' response wasn't just 'whiny anguish' or bait that gave me a chance to 'elaborate and get on my soapbox' once someone responded. All I wanted to say at the time was that I thought Japes' thing was sexist; and all I wanted to express was that at least one person felt like that. Fine, you disagree with my reaction. And if you don't like the way I phrased or went about it, that's fine too; you don't have to. But I did what I aimed to; and I thought it was worth saying even if you didn't. (And maybe there's even a few 'freedom of expression' points to be made in this context as well.)

 

Because, if you didn't notice, this place hasn't been about games predominantly for quite a long time. And in terms of branding, the forum at least isn't even starkly branded as a games forum, with the main thing you see being "The House of Lords". Not everyone has to feel included and socially accepted in every situation, and I don't really get this tendency where people think that an environment should warp to suit their needs when it's already likely targeted and suiting a demographic that isn't them. You make friends with people you like, you frequent places you like. You don't make friends that harbour different opinions to yours you find intolerable, and you don't go to places you don't like the look of. A feminist, for enjoyment, wouldn't go out of their way to watch something like The Wolf of Wall Street. Magic FM doesn't go out of its way to play Iron Man every day.

Why then should internet sites be any different? If I felt like this place was really about the games, or had ever been much about the games, since I'd joined then maybe I'd get your point. But it hasn't and it isn't, and it's not even well branded as such, and in comparison to most official gaming forums it's always enjoyed controversy as I've said. This forum does have its own tone, humour and sense of community that lived on past the interest and popular perusal of this forum for its gaming content, and you're still saying it should be cast off for people who aren't going to frequent this forum in the first place - quite possibly at the expense of people who would want to join the forum for it's unique outlook and the already established community?

Yeah, for me personally, if I found something slightly distressing on a forum I would investigate rather than exploding emotionally at the very instance of it. After looking into it, and if I still found it disagreeable given the context, I'd raise issue with it.

Something I think you have dramatically overlooked is the idea that people who make these jokes about dark subjects are doing so because it makes them more included and more comfortable, and that by not being able to have open expression they are now less comfortable and less included. I fundamentally believe that making these jokes is a way of coping with ideas and concepts that people find utterly incomprehensible and ugly, and so if people aren't allowed to share in a bit of levity about such a topic than it can weigh heavily on them.

In this circumstance who is right, the person who misinterprets a dark joke by someone else as a genuine attempt at prejudice when really it's only a way of coping with an often unpleasant world, or the person who makes the joke in the first place to make their world a little less dark by poking fun at something that's unpleasant?

This isn't a just a elaborate foil to your points for arguments' sake either, I do genuinely believe people use this humour to cope with difficult subject matter and to blow off steam. If that person isn't allowed to express themselves freely for relief, aren't they just as oppressed as the person telling them that they can't say such a thing because it's upsetting them in the first place? Particularly when none of this was born out of malice, just the desire to make life more liveable.

Quite possibly, people who get so offended by jokes don't dwell on unpleasant things in the world so often, and so when they see a joke they see it as something intentionally malign as they don't often think on things that are genuinely malign. People who make these jokes, do see or dwell on the negative in the world more, and feel obligated to make light of it for their own sanity. This is of course entirely my perspective, but one to me that makes the most sense.

The point I made that you were responding to above was, can't a single place exist where these jokes are accepted as okay? Again in relation to the first point quoted in this post, can't people with diametrically opposed ways of coping, simply not try to tell the other person they are wrong and avoid situations or places where they would? Live and let live and all that.

That was a great way to avoid the question, seeing as you went into so much detail about how wrong we all were.

Bingo...

Again I get that, but this is really a question of where this is happening, and it's happening here on this obscure forum. I might get that if it was Facebook, and you were challenging someone who you happened to be friends with but didn't really agree with, then you might not want to call out this tangible person in your life and all his friends to emotionally wage war on you. However, this obviously isn't something that would happen here, anyone with eyes can pretty much establish the traffic here these days and so I work out it isn't intimidating to take something up here with a few forum nerds you're never going to meet.

Well maybe you should change your aims if you want to be taken seriously, one of the earlier points I made was that by acting in such a way you really turned people off towards sensible discussion or discussion in general. If that was your aim, then fine, but from what you've said since it doesn't seem likely that you didn't want more lengthy debate about this.

 

I have a hunch that wayne doesn't feel as strongly about this subject as he would have you believe. I suspect he could read dozens of posts containing stronger language and more vile humor than what I employed, and he wouldn't say a word. I think he only fired the opening shot because it was me. If Smuel had written the OP, I doubt he would have batted an eyelash. But wayne doesn't seem to like me very much; I don't recall if he has ever directed a comment toward me that wasn't dripping with derision or outright hostility. So when he thought I was showing my ass, he saw a target of opportunity and engaged, probably thinking no one would challenge him on his position. He's not the type to concede a point, so now he's stuck in a drawn out firefight, battling for ground that wasn't strategically important to him in the first place.

Just my conjecture.

 

So my take away message is that romance novels sell.

I wonder if I could cobble together a plot from the colorful descriptions in this thread.

There's enough pricks, dicks, arses and fuckings here to give my nanna the vapours, and she's dead.

 

So that's why she didn't move much last night!

 

I would not have guessed that pedophile jokes were safer than sexist/misogynist jokes.

My thoughts are that responsible parties should be held accountable. If somebody has deliberately caused you distress, then let him have it. Otherwise, own your own feelings and relax.

 

I don't know, personally I'm still enjoying lessons in appropriate humour from the guy who posted a picture of someone with a trout up their ass.

 

I'm sure everyone is dying to hear my thoughts on this topic, so here they are:

I think that Jojojobo and Wayne-Scales are slightly talking at cross purposes. Wayne is complaining that Japes made a sexist post, and that it was not a nice thing to do. Jobobobo is saying that there shouldn't be off-topic limits on jokes. These two positions are not incompatible, and I happen to agree with both.

The problem with sexist jokes is that there are a lot of actual sexists in the world, and many of them are living out in the open. One of them is running for US President right now. So if you make a joke which consists of mocking a sexist attitude by posting something identical to a sexist attitude, you had better be damn sure that your audience will recognise that you are being satirical. A few years ago I made a post on a different forum where I wrote a review of the film "Wanted". I said that on the whole it was a terrible film, but on the plus side it did offer a glimpse of Angelina Jolie's butt. In my head I was cleverly skewering the idea that someone might think that such a thing counted as a redeeming feature, and I was attempting to reinforce just how poor I thought the film was. In hindsight I realised that a large proportion of my audience probably took the statement at face value and assumed I was the kind of sniggering man-child who would see that as an actual plus.

I don't know Japes particularly well. What I do know of him seems compatible with someone who has spent recent years in a hyper-masculine military environment, and I have formed my pre-conceptions accordingly. When I saw his initial post, I, like Wayne, thought he was being more sincere than I now think he actually intended. Maybe Japes fell into the same trap that I did with my Wanted review, or maybe he didn't - I'm still not sure. But in a way that's irrelevant - whether he was displaying a brazenly sexist attitude ironically or non-ironically, the claim that he was displaying a brazenly sexist attitude holds up. And given that brazenly sexist attitudes are displayed non-ironically a lot of the time means that you can hardly blame Wayne and me for thinking that's what was happening this time. I think Wayne's initial point was more akin to "Be careful - you sound like an ass", rather than "This forum is no place for sounding like an ass!" Though he didn't do himself any favours when he started using terms like "hegemonic oppression".

Contrast that with Jobojobo's jokes about paedophilia. Actual paedophiles don't smugly advertise their condition, so there isn't much danger of anyone thinking Jobobojo actually means it when he writes that he's attracted to babies or whatever. It's a far less risky kind of humour, in the sense of being less at risk of being taken at face value, so there's actually more leeway in the joke telling. I agree that we can tell these jokes here, though it is kind of curious that the example Jobobojo linked to is a case where a female member of the board was prompted to leave. That doesn't really fit with the whole "it's harmless tongue in cheek banter" line.

In short, we're all terrible people, but let's try to avoid making jokes that are easily construed as not-jokes, and also avoid jumping down other people's throats when they don't live up to our expectations. Your mom didn't live up to my expectations last night, but you don't see me going down her thr... okay, that's a bad example.

 

I'm pretty bored of the argument right now, so I did it as a little self-sabotage to make things interesting - yeah I'm surprised you were the first to notice, or if not the first to comment on it. If wayne was bothering to pay attention to the details, I thought he'd be all over it like your mum on a 12-inch ass-buster dildo in front of a paying audience, but clearly he isn't.

Honestly, I can't wait to hear him justify how a picture of a (dead? alive?) fish up someone's ass is less offensive to not just women but to everyone than any number of the jokes we post here. But I guess that'll just be me using the old tu quoque again, I'm sure.

 

Wow, didn't take us too long to get back to this stage. Yeah, I'm not gonna say I haven't done offensive things in the past, or justify them as more or less offensive than other things. I'm sure lots of us could drag up stuff from our past that we're probably not proud of, and that doesn't negate anything we might think now. Saying 'but you've been a shit too!' to somebody doesn't automatically make what they're saying not make sense, even if you might believe that it's a bit rich coming from them.


@Japes: I love you, man. Never change.

 

Smuel, I'm deeply offended by your use of the damaging stereotype describing me as a hyper masculine military type. I'm actually quite sensitive, and a generous lover. Just ask your mom.

 

Okay fine I'll drop it, I admire your meteoric capacity for change and growth and I think you're a champion amongst men.

However, I have made several other more serious points since you previously posted, none of which can be considered straw man.

 

On the "we're not chiefly a games forum anymore" thing: You have a point there; but I'll just say that although you think the branding etc. doesn't scream 'games forum' (and some people might disagree), most people will find this place by googling 'Arcanum' or something similar, so those sorts of people are still being directed to the place that way (just something to consider).

* * *

'But people like the tone!': You're right; some people do. It'd be interesting to know, however, how many people like it for the same reason as you. Some might like being controversial just to be nasty or provoke a reaction, some might be genuinely sexist (consciously or unconsciously), and some might, like you, find some happiness and relief in laughing at the darkness of a world that contains these first two types of people. The problem, I guess, is that sometimes these different people are all making the same joke and defending it in similar ways. As Smuel pointed out, it's not always an easy, cut-and-dry process of distinguishing between them; and as Ruda said, it's worthwhile to challenge these jokes on that basis. I'd add here that it's not just people who take offense to these things that can mix up the different motivations behind the jokes; it could also be the people making the jokes in the first place; and in this case you could end up with a situation where people are unwittingly joking at cross, and damaging, purposes. And that is all assuming that motivations for jokes like this are completely transparent to yourself, if not to others; but that's is something worth questioning too. This is, I think, especially relevant in the case of sexist (and racist) jokes: unlike paedophilia (at least in the modern sense, though we could argue about that all day), sexism is something that was a dominant and largely accepted part of (at least Western) culture up until really recently (and still is, in lots of places), and is something people often downplay or don't take as seriously as more 'obviously' damaging issues like racism or paedophilia (I, for one, found something disturbing in TDC's comment that 'you must speak out against it lest women everywhere are obliterated by the crushing hardship of being so well provided for that they have the leisure of reading romance novels'). So it's not that there's 'a belief that sexism is some sort of inherent part of human nature and we must therefore resist it'; it's that it's something a lot of us probably grew up surrounded by, even if we didn't call it that at the time, so it's worth introspecting, self-interrogating, and doubting about. I don't tell myself that I'm not sexist, because I probably am in a lot of ways (I'd have to be a pretty remarkable person not to be), unbeknownst to myself; and I'd be suspicious of anybody who grew up in similar environments but who is so sure that it didn't rub off on them, even unconsciously. That's why, as Ruda says, these things 'need to be combated daily'. Lastly, aside from all this, there are definitely some people here who find offense in these jokes, even if it's sometimes just because of a failure to distinguish the types of people I mentioned before. This is all just a long way of saying that I don't think it's as simple as "we're into dark humour here". (And to be clear: I'm not accusing you in particular of anything; I'm just pointing out possibilities that occur to me that are applicable to anyone.)

To just mention Japes here for a sec, I'd firstly say that I think we're gone way beyond being focused on his particular joke and whether it was offensive or not, in this discussion, and are now talking more generally; and secondly, even though Japes thinks I don't like him, I don't know enough about him to even know whether I like him or not, let alone whether he's sexist or not. As far as I know, the man never drank a Duff in his life.

* * *

On avoiding the question: My answer was, 'I don't know'. I'm not sure how to do much better than that if it's the truth.

* * *

I disagree and think this is overly simplistic, especially if you want to spend time here talking to people. I wonder would you have made your sarcastic remark about the 'thoroughly exciting affair' that is my other thread if you weren't already angry at me for what I've been saying. That's just one tiny instance that's easy to ignore, I guess; but the principle is the same whether you'd decided to hound me with vicious attacks or just make snide, sarcastic jabs whenever it suited you, especially since I and others have no way of knowing which you're going to choose since, as showcased above, it could be either.

 

Hey Jojojojo, on the whole I agree with your pro-offensive humour line, but I still think you're kind of missing the point in this case.

A picture of someone with a fish up their ass may be offensive, but it's offensive in a broad general way. Jimmy Carr may be offensive, but he does it in the context of a comedy show. On the other hand a statement like "fat women are gross lol" is precisely the kind of thing that actual 15 year olds yell at people online when they suspect them of being fat women, and that's being cruel to a specific subset of the population, and that's not very nice.

You may happen to know that when Japes says "fat women are gross lol" he doesn't mean it literally, because he jerks off to pictures of your mom, but any new people visiting the forum, who don't know him, are likely to think that it indicates the same juvenile atmosphere that pervades lots of other gaming forums, and that they won't be welcome as a result. And then they won't join the forum. And then who will we white knight for?

 

I think I get it now. Somehow, we all gave birth to Smuel.

 

While I get the difference between what Japes said and other more generally offensive images and jokes, I think my point still stands on free speech. Japes posted something arguably offensive, and wayne called him on it - and that really is the way it should be. I don't really care for censorship, if people want to put negative and unpleasant opinions in any public space they should be allowed to, just as people should be able to call them on it.

However I think there's definitely a grey area where people say some things shouldn't be said, but then they actually go a step beyond that and try and enforce those things not being said. I guess it's quite possibly wayne's initial attitude that made me think he was in the former camp rather than the latter.

Come on wayne, you and I both know whoever is googling "Arcanum" in this day and age is a complete and utter weirdo, and will likely fit right in.

Personally I think you might be transposing some of your guilt about your own past sexism and attitudes onto the forum, thereby overcompensating and overreacting when it arguably presented itself instead of just - you know - reacting. I find it weird that so many people believe they were raised in a sexist environment - didn't anyone else just get raised by a non-sexist, non-racist, non-prejudiced family and didn't mingle with non-sexist, non-racist, non-prejudiced friends (or if their friends didn't fall under those categories, they weren't influenced by them)? My upbringing wasn't always exactly golden, but those basics were in play.

I get the point about not always knowing people's motivations underlying their humour. I suppose in real life it's much easier to evaluate someone's motivations, but on the internet it can be a bit tricky. On a place like this however, with established members, I think people would have shown their hand by now if they did have a heavily prejudiced attitude - I think most people are much more on the nose when they hold those kind of beliefs because for the most part I think they do want people to share in them, and I don't think making risqué jokes to allude to their beliefs would really cut it. Obviously this is purely conjecture.

I guess that's why I value freedom of speech, because if I have joked freely and it has been misinterpreted I can explain myself and hopefully make the picture clearer - whereas if a sexist posts up humour and they're called on it they're more likely to trip themselves up and get scorn heaped on them. In either case, I think the initial joking should be allowed.

And damnit man, put in some paragraphs into that mess.

Well you annoyed me, and I didn't like the way at all you were broaching issues. I expected you not to be a big girl's blouse about my abuse, and you haven't been so all is good. This forum has always been confrontational as I mentioned, and obviously I was surprised and found it hypocritical your stance on certain issues given your past - and I maybe would get the tu quoque idea if you had couched your own responses more rationally like it was a debate, but you didn't and so I didn't because I just couldn't be bothered when the tone had already been lowered so far.

What I'm saying is you were a special case, people around here are fairly chilled out lately and my actions are an exception to the pretty blatant rule. I'm pretty sure if this place was being actively modded in recent times, this would have likely been vaulted from what I said - but it isn't and so here we are. To be honest, I think the discussion that eventually came was interesting despite the initial crap so it was worthwhile.

I'll try my best to stop randomly abusing you so much, despite the fact what your mum did to me last night has considerably lowered my esteem of you and your whole family for several generations at least.